Category: Corruption Corner

One Set of Rules for Obama, Another Set of Rules for Everybody Else

Obama has a hardon for blowing people up with drones. He enjoys his flying death machines so much that he celebrated his reelection by blowing up some people in Yemen. Hell, Obama has blown up so many people with his precious drones that the government has lost count of the number of people killed. So far the rules about how will and will not be assassinated by Obama has remained a mystery. Obama has shown no desire to justify his murderous rampage and even told Congress to bugger off when they started whispering about drone oversight. But if Obama is one thing he’s a hypocrite and therefore wants one set of rules for himself and another set of rules for his successor:

After four years in which more than 300 drone strike killed some 2,500 people, President Obama and his team thought it was finally time to develop some actual, written-down rules on when the United States could kill someone. And what led them to this conclusion? Could it have been a recognition that perhaps there was something troubling about the widening net of suspects deemed eligible for murder by the U.S. government? Not really. They were just worried somebody else was going to make the decisions. “There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” an official tells the New York Times.

Fearing that Romney being the next guy with his finger over the drone button the Obama administration went to work codifying rules pertaining to drone assassinations. Since Obama wont the election I’m guessing those written rules will be filed in the recycling bin until 2016. Either way it’s always entertaining to point out the president’s hypocrisy.

The Border Patrol, Arming Mexican Drug Cartels So You Don’t Have To

There has to be some amount of irony in the fact that the United States government won’t allow persons it labels as prohibited persons to own firearms but gladly gives such weapons to members of drug cartels that qualify as prohibited persons. Testimony by a Mexican drug cartel assassin indicates that the United States Border Patrol has been arming members of Mexico’s drug cartels:

The testimony of a Mexican hitman turned government witness has revealed some astonishing details of life inside Mexico’s criminal underworld. Most astonishing of all: claims that cartel assassins obtained guns from the U.S. Border Patrol.

According to Mexican magazine Revista Contralinea, the testimony comes from a protected government witness and former hitman, who cooperated in the prosecution of a Sinaloa Cartel accountant by the Mexican Attorney General’s Office. The testimony details a series of battles fought by a group of cartel members attempting to drive out rival gangsters from territory in Mexico’s desert west. To do it, the group sought weapons from the U.S., including at least 30 WASR-10 rifles — a variant of the AK-47 — allegedly acquired from Border Patrol agents.

This shouldn’t be surprising to anybody that’s been following Fast and Furious. Evidence has shown that the United States government has been arming favored Mexican drug cartels so they can fight other drug cartels. The United States government has made alliances with those is claims to fight in order to fight others it claims to fight. Having the Border Patrol arm cartel assassins seems like the next logical step to that operation.

It’s sad how the United States government says people living here who have been convicted for drug use and selling drugs aren’t eligible to own firearms but people living in Mexico who have done the same thing and commit acts of murder are eligible to own firearms. In fact the latter has firearms supplied to them by the United States government.

I will also raise the following question: how can an organization that supplies guns to known murders be trusted to enforce any form of gun control? Aren’t gun control advocates also demanding that violent criminals be disarmed? Why do they trust the same organization that’s arming violent criminals with implementing laws regarding guns?

Using the State to Stifle Competition

How do you know a company has a good idea? Currently established companies in that market initiate lawsuits:

Friday’s news is less flattering: A judge in New York will take up a lawsuit against the company about how Tesla sells its cars.

[…]

This isn’t a typical sale for Tesla Motors, but according to car dealers in Massachusetts, if it had happened there, it would have been illegal.

The issue is that Tesla sold the car through its own store, instead of through a local dealership.

Robert O’Koniewski, the executive vice president of the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, is suing Tesla for opening a store in a local mall.

In Massachusetts, franchise law 93B prohibits a manufacturer from owning a dealership, O’Koniewski says. An auto dealer association in New York is also suing Tesla.

Tesla, the company that produces one of the few electric cars that doesn’t suck, has managed to get its foot in the door of the automobile market. Needless to say currently established automotive companies and their partners are moving quickly to stop Tesla through the most commonly used method, the state’s gun. This shouldn’t be surprising considering the failures experienced by the currently established automotive companies in the field of electric cars. If a company can’t competed against a new competitor they can always bleed the them dry through the court system.

This is one of the problems with the legal system in the United States. Due to the complexity of the system specialized knowledge is required in order to prosecute somebody or defend yourself. Specialized knowledge, as a general rule, is expensive and therefore being involved in a lawsuit can quickly bleed and individual or small company dry. Larger established companies on the other hand usually have enough reserve capital to continue a lawsuit for however long is necessary to bankrupt their new competitors. I won’t be surprised if Tesla continues to face new lawsuits from individuals and companies involved with established automobile manufactures.

Amy Klobuchar Selling Protection

Many people claim that the state is necessary to prosecute those who have defrauded others. Of course this raises a question: who watches the watchmen? Before becoming a senator, Amy Klobuchar was an attorney for Hennepin County. During here time she was apparently selling favors. In exchange for campaign contributes Klobuchar was apparently willing to overlook a giant ponzi scheme being performed by Tom Petters:

Documents obtained by The Daily Caller show that U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar helped keep a multibillion-dollar Ponzi schemer out of prison in the late 1990s when she was the County Attorney in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

That financial criminal, Tom Petters, presided over companies whose employees gave Klobuchar $8,500 for her re-election campaign, and would later contribute more than $120,000 toward her U.S. Senate run.

[…]

Perhaps because of the lure of Petters’ campaign cash or his deep connection to Minnesota Democratic politics, Klobuchar used the power of her office in 1999 to ensure Petters was not charged with financial crimes. And despite significant evidence against him, she cleared the way for Petters to build his multibillion-dollar illegal empire by prosecuting only his early co-conspirators.

This should come as no surprise to anybody. Those attracted to the state’s power are often sociopaths and are therefore willing to grant privileges to those offering political gain. Giving any entity a monopoly on the use of violence will ultimately end with that entity abusing its power. Time and time again we hear about state thugs taking great deals of cash in exchange for legal protections.

Whether this affects Klobuchar’s election has yet to be seen although it doesn’t appear that this news is catching on so I’m doubting it.

Leah Plante Joins Fellow Anarchist in Prison

I have an update on yesterday’s story about Leah Planet. She refused to testify against he fellow anarchists during the grand jury hearing and is now being held in a cage:

A third self-described anarchist from the Pacific Northwest has been jailed by federal officials for refusing to speak before a secretive grand jury that the accused have called a politically-motivated modern-day witch-hunt.

Leah-Lynn Plante, a mid-20s activist from Seattle, Washington, was ushered out of court by authorities on Wednesday after refusing for a third time to answer questions forced on her by a grand jury — a panel of prosecutors convened to determine if an indictment can be issued for a federal crime.

She joins fellow anarchists Katherine Olejnik and Matt Duran as state prisoners in their fishing expedition. Even though the state goons had enough cause to get a warrant issued (in other words they were able to drop the word anarchist near a judge) they apparently couldn’t find enough evidence of wrongdoing to charge the three with any crime so they’ve resorted to coercive tactics to wrest testimonies from the three. Fortunately Leah, Katherine, and Matt are reusing to play the state’s game.

I can do nothing but commend the three’s refusal to cooperate with the criminal gang generally referred to as government. Whether they do anything wrong or not isn’t really relevant in this case as responsibility to gather evidence of wrongdoing falls to the prosecutors. Seeing insufficient evidence exists to even bring up charges this is looking more like an anarchist witch hunt than a serious attempt to get justice for wronged individuals.

The State Protects Its Cronies Part Two

At the beginning of this year the state ruled that telecommunications companies can’t be sued for participating in warrantless wiretaps. Needless to say the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court who, not surprisingly, upheld the ruling:

WASHINGTON – The US Supreme Court let stand Tuesday an immunity law on wiretapping viewed by government as a useful anti-terror tool but criticized by rights activists as a flagrant abuse of executive power.

The top US court declined to review a December 2011 appeals court decision that rejected a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the National Security Agency monitor its customers’ phone calls and Internet traffic.

It’s not surprising to see the state protecting its cronies. If you’re providing a service that allows the state to ignore the declared rights of individuals you’re all but guaranteed some amount of state protection (so long as you’re useful). Telecommunication companies not only receive protection from the state for participating in warrantless wiretaps but they also make a great deal of money off of wiretaps.

For those of you who still believe the Constitution is the be all and end all for fighting tyranny I must ask you a question: do you like the fact that nine assholes in robes get to, according to the Constitution, determine your rights?

Locking People in Cages

A Seattle anarchist is likely to be tossed into a cage because she’s unwilling to cooperate with a Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) witch hunt:

Today Leah Plante will again appear before a federal grand jury in Seattle, Washington, for the third time, and refuse to testify about her political beliefs and political associations. It is likely that she will be imprisoned for her principled stance against what she calls a witch hunt against local anarchists.

The grand jury is investigating anarchists in the Northwest, following FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force raids in search of “anarchist literature.” Two other anarchists, Matthew Kyle Duran and Katherine Olejnik, have already been imprisoned for refusing to cooperate.

I have to give Leah Plante credit for having one hell of a backbone. Her kidnapping at the hands of law enforcement agents appears to be nothing more than a typical interstate anarchist witch hunt that the FBI likes to perform periodically (before the Republican National Convention in St. Paul similar raids were conducted on anarchist gathering spots). These witch hunts, like any form of state witch hunt, are run in a fairly specific manner. First a warrant is issued that targets anything and everything you may find at a typical target’s home (anarchist literature in an anarchist home for example) then the targeted individuals are hauled in front of a grand jury and expected to testify against their friends. These coerced (if they don’t testify they’re locked in a cage) testimonies are then used as evidence to bring charges against the targeted individuals.

If she does testify her friends may face charges and spend time in a cage and if she doesn’t testify she’ll probably spend time in a cage. As usual the state offers no escape from its wrath.

How to Get Away with Committing Crimes

Do you want to commit crimes and not worry about any consequences? If so I have good news, you can commit any crime you want and not worry about being arrest so long as you do it on the state’s behalf:

The nation’s top drug and gun enforcement agencies do not track how often they give their informants permission to break the law on the government’s behalf.

U.S. Justice Department rules put strict limits on when and how agents at the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives can authorize their informants — often drawn from the ranks of the criminals they are investigating — to commit a crime. But both the ATF and DEA acknowledged, in response to open-records requests and in written statements, that they do not track how often such permission is given.

Is anybody surprised by the fact that one criminal organization has no problem giving another criminal organization permission to commit crimes? While it was known that the state often gives informants permission to commit crimes it was also assumed that the state kept track of such granted permissions. If the state was interested in law enforcement you would think they would keep track of the times they’ve authorized thefts, smuggling illicit substances, or more heinous crimes. Instead such permissions are thrown down the memory hole. The lesson from this news is clear, if you want to commit crimes become an organ of the state.

Illegal Attempted Criminal Behavior

You know the police state is in full swing when attempted criminal acts are illegal:

A 29-year-old Geneva man is facing charges after 10 pounds of marijuana was found inside a package.

Angnem Green of Geneva is charged with attempted criminal possession of marijuana, a felony.

Mind you that the man isn’t being charged with possession but attempted possession of marijuana. Shouldn’t the man actually have to have possession of an illicit substance before he’s charged with a crime? I guess people are easier to control if you make everything illegal.

TSA Given Extension on Holding a Public Hearing Regarding Body Scanners

Approximately 14 months ago the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) were order to hold a public hearing regarding their use of body scanners. Needless to say they haven’t complied and were taken to court over their refusal to comply. Luckily for the TSA they are a part of the same state that controls the court system and therefore have been granted extra special privileges:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday said it was giving the Transportation Security Administration until the end of March to comport with an already 14-month-old order to “promptly” hold public hearings and take public comment concerning the so-called nude body scanners installed in U.S. airport security checkpoints.

The public comments and the agency’s answers to them are reviewable by a court, which opens up a new avenue for a legal challenge to the agency’s decision to deploy the scanners. Critics maintain the scanners, which use radiation to peer through clothes, are threats to Americans’ privacy and health, which the TSA denies.

By the time March comes around you can be assured that another extension will be given. The state has a great deal of interest in forcing its subjects to submit to pointless authoritarianism. A public hearing would likely reveal that the body scanners aren’t as safe as the TSA advertises and that would cause the proles to be less than happy about the dangers they’ve been put in in the name of security theatre. I doubt we’ll ever see an actual public hearing regarding these body scanners. At most the old models will be phased out for a new and improved model. After the new models are in place the TSA will claim all previous health concerns are even more misplaced than before and another long series of lawsuits will be required before the TSA is required to hold a public hearing on the new body scanners.